It seems like forever since we started this series on celebrity culture in Evangelical and Reformed circles.  I’ve enjoyed a rather long blog hiatus, for which I’m thankful.  And tonight I feel like writing that final post I promised some time ago.

For several posts, we attempted to think about the issue of “celebrity pastors.”  Over the last several years, the topic appeared repeatedly in the blogosphere and in on-line periodicals.  ”Celebrity pastors” are universally decried (well, except for Jonathan Leeman’s appreciation) but rarely defined or identified.  Since the term and its cousin, “Rock star pastor,” communicates negative judgment, and since the tag rarely falls on particular pastors but drapes like a blanket over much of the conference-going, book-buying Evangelical and Reformed world, it seemed at least some preliminary investigation and framing were required.

In this series, I’ve offered one take, depending on the secular work of Daniel J. Boorstin and Neal Gabler.  Thus far, we’ve covered the following ground:

• Let’s Talk about “Celebrity” and “Rock Star Pastors” (An Introduction)
• The Deadly Death of Definitions: On the Use of Terms
• How Big Is the Problem?
• How Pastors Become Celebrities (A Framework)
• Is Your Pastor a Celebrity
• The Role of Media in Creating Celebrity

In all of this, I’ve tried to dust off some corroded social science approaches to the issue.  And at the heart, I’ve tried to show that celebrity culture involves three players, each with their respective role: the well-known person who may or may not be guilty of “celebrity-seeking”; the media who develops and disseminates a narrative and publicity that increases tangibility and the likelihood of “celebrity”; and the audience or fanbase that consumes the media, identifies with the person, and confers “celebrity status” to the well-known person.

I readily admit that the problem exists and that the temptation lies in every heart.  However, I disagree with the assertion that the problem is pandemic.  My data is admittedly anecdotal and taken from interactions in one forum: the conferences so often blamed for fostering the problem.  Anecdotally, I’d put the problem maybe at 10-20 percent of young conference-goers.  By my crude math, that tallied to some 200-400 “celebrity-gawkers” in a crowd of 5,000.  Not scientific, I know.  But I welcome other methods and estimates because defining the scope of the problem remains critical for rightly responding to it.  Why roach bomb with a blanket condemnation of all of Evangelicalism if what we really need are well-targeted and tailored messages for the under-30s who could be helped to mature beyond this phase?  The size of the problem matters for measuring and tempering our responses.

Well, that brings us to the topic for today: Who are the “fans” and what are their responsibilities for the “celebrity” problem?

Who You Calling a ‘Fanboy’?

We’re accustomed to thinking of ourselves as fans of sports teams, some entertainers, and maybe even a politician or two.  But there’s something slightly uncomfortable about regarding ourselves as fans of a Christian preacher or teacher.  Perhaps the sensitivity comes from the Bible’s clear warnings against pride, partisanship, and assigning glory or fear to men.  The One True and Living God demands that glory belongs to Him alone.  So, we shudder at the thought of being a fan of Pastor ___.

Sensitivity and shuddering notwithstanding, however, we do become fans of preachers and pastors. What does that mean?  A short note from wikipedia:

Merriam-Webster, the Oxford dictionary and other recognized sources define “fan” as a shortened version of the word fanatic, and the word first became popular in reference to an enthusiastic follower of a baseball team. (Fanatic itself, introduced into English around 1550, means “marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion”. It comes from the Modern Latin fanaticus, meaning “insanely but divinely inspired”. The word originally pertained to a temple or sacred place [Latin fanum, poetic English fane]. The modern sense of “extremely zealous” dates from around 1647; the use of fanatic as a noun dates from 1650.) However, the term “fancy” for an intense liking of something, while being of a different etymology, coincidentally carries a less intense but somewhat similar connotation to “fanatic”. The word emerged as an Americanism around 1889.

The fan-fanatic connection makes the idea of being any preacher/pastor’s “fan” even less appealing.  Certainly we don’t want to be fanatics about a man, even if he does preach God’s word.  That gives an ironic ring of truth to the Latin’s meaning–”insanely but divinely inspired.”   Winston Churchill provides another memorable line when he opines, ”A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”

Some social scientists seemed to have Churchill in mind when they created a “celebrity worship scale.”  Researchers posit three levels of celebrity worship:

Entertainment-social

This dimension comprises attitudes that fans are attracted to a favorite celebrity because of their perceived ability to entertain and become a social focus such as “I love to talk with others who admire my favorite celebrity” and “I like watching and hearing about my favorite celebrity when I am with a large group of people”.

Intense-personal

Intense-personal aspect of celebrity worship reflects intensive and compulsive feelings about the celebrity, akin to the obsessional tendencies of fans often referred to in the literature; for example “I share with my favorite celebrity a special bond that cannot be described in words” and “When something bad happens to my favorite celebrity I feel like it happened to me’”.

Borderline-pathological

This dimension is typified by uncontrollable behaviors and fantasies regarding scenarios involving their celebrities, such as “I have frequent thoughts about my favorite celebrity, even when I don’t want to” and “my favorite celebrity would immediately come to my rescue if I needed any type of help”.

Let’s all express our concern for anything beyond entertainment-social attitudes and behavior.  In fact, the intense-personal level has been linked to poor mental health.  And who would suggest borderline-pathological could ever be healthy?  If we think we’re seeing these higher two levels of fixation, the remedy isn’t blog posts but a swift referral to a clinical professional.

But the key issue among Evangelicals with entertainment-social celebrity attraction is not likely “ability to entertain” but “ability to edify.”  There can be a blurring of the two things.  But by and large, Evangelicals report appreciation for the way they’re built up by this or that pastor’s preaching.  Evangelical “fans” enjoy discussing sermons, books, articles, and gathering at conference along with others who enjoy the same pastors and preachers.  I’ve never heard someone say anything approaching, “I share a special bond that cannot be described with Pastor ____.” Praise God I’ve never heard that or even sensed that in others.

We might not recognize ourselves on this scale, and the term “worship” might offend evangelical sensibilities.  But that doesn’t mean we don’t have a place in fandom.

Are you a “fan” of anything?  Say a sports team?  A politician?  How about a preacher/pastor?

How would you know?  One tell-tale sign would be an ongoing interest and investment in a celebrity’s story.  You buy every interview in every magazine.  You keep track of the developments, and the more complex and detailed the better.  You may even take pride in excelling others in your knowledge of the person’s life and ministry.  You feel a personal connection with the person well beyond your actual relationship to them.  If these things describe you, you’re a “fan.”

To Be or Not to Be a Fan?  Is That Even a Question?

I suppose it is a question, or at least it needs to be.  Why would one set out to be a fan or continue in the herd of fans once they discover they’ve been taken unawares into the crowd?  Is fandom ever a good thing?  Or, to use the language we’ve been using throughout the posts, should we ever contribute to the creation of “celebrity”?

Short answer: No.

Yet, despite earlier protests to the contrary, I maintain that the only segment of people in this equation (pastors, media, and fans) who can in fact make a pastor a celebrity is the fan.  Celebrity status must be conferred.  It cannot be demanded nor can it be created.  Wanna-be celebrities may pose and glitter, photographers and writers may seek to tell a good story, but at the end of the day the audience must buy the product, not just read but associate with the story, and subsequently join others similarly associating with the celebrity or celebrity narrative.  By definition, if there is no audience there is no celebrity.  If the public ‘checks out’ then it’s game, set, match on the story and the person as celebrity.

To put it another way: If there is a problem–of whatever size–with Evangelical celebrities, the majority of the problem lies with those who confer celebrity status.  I realize that sounds like I’m “blaming the victim.”  After all, unscrupulous celebrity-seekers may manipulate stories and images with the hopes or effect of duping the audience.  I would never excuse such behavior, and such a person would never meet biblical qualifications for pastoral ministry. But even allowing that dishonest men seek to profit through deceitful scheming, doesn’t knowing that suggest we (the public) ought to re-double our efforts to be discerning consumers?  Being a victim or potential victim doesn’t absolve us of the responsibility to watch our lives–which necessarily includes evaluating those we support.

How Not to Be a Fanboy

With all this in mind, let me conclude (finally!) this series of posts with some suggestions for all of us potential fan boys and girls out there.  If the bulk of the responsibility lies in our court, then how do we work against contributing to a “celebrity culture” and conferring “celebrity status” onto either suspecting or unsuspecting persons?  In no particular order:

Change Our Consumption Habits.  Like it or not, a lot of this comes down to what we buy or who we buy.  Marketers know this.  They study us in order to take advantage of our buying habits.  Nevertheless, we’re the ones plunking down cash or plastic to buy the book, cd, or whatever.  I don’t argue we should stop buying things that profit our souls, just that we should consume more wisely.  Do we need the next book by that author in that series of titles?  Do we need that same basic idea expounded for and marketed to adults, teens, church leaders, stamp collectors, and bird watchers?  Many of us would be better off downloading the free classic instead of buying the next “new release.”  One way to undermine celebrity-making tendencies would be to monitor and change our sometimes mindless, crowd-following, marketing-induced purchasing habits.  I know I could stand to do a better job of this.

Moderate Our Affections. The conferral of celebrity-status depends in good measure on the audience developing inordinate affection for the “celebrity.”  Again, allowing that some dishonest persons may try to play on people’s affections, the development of inordinate attachment for someone you don’t know really remains a problem only the consumer can address.  Up-front guys can and should deflect attention and adulation.  But we need to learn the discipline of examining our hearts for appropriate/inappropriate reactions to people and stories.  This means, in large part, honestly admitting a basic fact: We don’t know the people we’re fawning over.  Then asking a simple question: Given I don’t know this person, should I really allow myself to developer stalker-like attachments for them?  Answer: No.  Court-enforced restraining orders are designed for people with such attachments.  Let’s train our hearts, leading them by both the word of God and the light of reality.

Check Out of the Narratives. I would contend that this is fundamental for both of the strategies above.  Chances are your Google reader, Twitter following, and Facebook “likes” and “fan pages” tell you something about the narratives you’re buying.  Add to those steady “news” streams from our favorite persons the YouTube clips, articles and books, and conference opportunities and we can find ourselves more deeply immersed in the leader- and media-created narratives than we thought.  I’m guessing that most people who follow blogs, Twitter, and Facebook have something on the average of 10-20 “contacts” with high-profile persons they don’t know and perhaps have never met.  That stream of contacts represents a constant narrative development that we first absorb and then immerse ourselves into.  We’re conferring celebrity when we attach ourselves to these stories then allow our affections and purchases to run away with us.  We need to unplug.  We have to stop “following” the story and the person.  We need to stop contributing to the larger-than-life stories that transform well-deserved notoriety into “celebrity” rather than attenuated honor.

Conclusion

Thus endeth my two cents on this topic.  I’m genuinely grateful for the men the Lord has raised up, made faithful, and used in my life to help me understand the Bible better, love Christ more, and hopefully live more faithfully than I would have otherwise.  I honor them as the Bible instructs.  But I don’t worship them, and I don’t think the bulk of Evangelicalism does either.  But where it does exist, whether it’s ten or sixty percent of us, we need to take the responsibility that confesses it, repents of it, and walks on the grace and knowledge of the Blessed Lord.  May the Lord help us to give thanks for His gifts and to love Him, the Giver.

If “celebrity” requires a compelling narrative, then it also requires telling and hearing that narrative. A good story means very little if no one hears about it or cares about. If a tree falls in the woods….

So, while we may rightly decry any celebrity-seeking we see among evangelical pastors, simply pointing fingers at “rock star” and “celebrity pastors” without thinking through the multiple contributors to the phenomena seems rather simplistic. Pastors have responsibility for thinking about the narratives they create or accept, but we also need to identify the responsibilities various media outlets and media contributors have.

Who Is “the Media”?

The phrase is ubiquitous. Everyone from politicians to Wall Street protesters to average Joes at the office point fingers at “the media” for creating this or that misrepresentation or problem. Sometimes it reminds me of the nefarious but vague “they” and “them” routinely cited as having this or that complaint about the church and pastors. “They” don’t want to sing as many songs. “Some people” are unhappy with the sermons. If we pursue corrective love it will upset “them.” One can lose his mind and ministry attempting to identify and satisfy the phantoms and shadows hiding behind plural pronouns.

So it is with “the media” in discussions about celebrity culture among Evangelical Christians. Who are we talking about?

The answers are many. I’ll define it simply as those who control the creation and dissemination of narratives about people and events for public consumption. We may include in this definition traditional media roles like journalist, author, television anchor, editorial director, publishers and so on. And we think of the traditional outlets like television, print, and radio.

But we also have to include other creators of media for our purposes: conference organizers, church media departments, and almost anyone with an iphone and internet access. A significant part of the media influencing contemporary evangelical celebrity narratives includes youtube clips, twitter, blogs, and the like. It seems most viral videos have their start with the amateur, not the professional. We have seen “the media,” and it is us.

The democratization of media in our day far surpasses any other era of human history. This means those controlling and influencing media have a significant part to play and we have to broaden our understanding of who contributes to the media and therefore potentially contributes to “celebrity culture.”

While the world of secular celebrity separates the roles of celebrity and media, contemporary Evangelicalism blurs the distinction.  ”The media” very often belongs to the pastor or church.  Savvy marketing and media departments become ready agents for “getting the message out.”  In godly hands, “getting the message out” means getting the gospel out.  In more worldly or at least careless hands, it means getting the person’s name out.  What was a precious commodity in secular circles of celebrity (publicity) has become an ordinary church ministry among some Evangelicals.  Without question this fuels both the perception and the reality of celebrity culture inside Evangelicalism.  We may be victims of our own control and access to media.

Media Interests: It Makes Cents to Make Celebrities

We’ve witnessed over the last two decades (at least) increasing sensationalizing and entertainment orientation of most media forms, even on so-called news and journalism programs. Once upon a time, most journalism focused on getting the facts correct. The narrative depended heavily on truth-telling.

But nowadays, it seems the media emphasizes telling an entertaining or compelling story–increasingly without regard to propriety and facts. What matters is public attention, sales, hits, comments, downloads, growth, and audience entertainment.  Driving these metrics upward essentially involves having certain faces on the cover or placard, or mentioning certain names in the post or tweet. Such strategies do not automatically convey “celebrity,” but they frequently do.

In such an environment, we can expect strong temptations toward crafting stories that wittingly or unwittingly create celebrity. This temptation rests upon a symbiotic relationship between the celebrity and the media.  The two live together in a persistent mutualism, each enriching the other.  The celebrity provides the narrative that sells media production, while media production reinforces celebrity status.  ”Celebrity provides magazines, television, newspapers, books, and increasingly the Internet with stories and stars; these media in turn provide celebrity, having no screen of its own, with a veritable multiplex to reach the public” (Gabler, p. 11).  ”The media have devised a semiotics of celebrity in both word and image” (Gabler, p. 4), while the celebrity masters the crafts of drama and intrigue.  In other words, the media have developed signs and indications for revealing who the celebrities are, while the celebrity seekers bolster their narratives for consumption.  We even have a colloquial phrase for the media’s role in all of this–”the celebrity treatment.”

That’s the theme for Together for the Gospel next year. As always, I’m excited about what for me is a big family reunion at T4G. Even this week, as I’ve had the honor of serving the saints at Berean Baptist Church, I’ve been stirred to anticipation by the anticipation of the 40+ men at Berean who have attended T4G each year and literally been awakened to the power of the gospel over these six years! I’m pumped!

I pray it would be life-changing and soul-stirring to consider a fuller appreciation of the power of the Gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16). If you haven’t seen them yet, below are videos from the brothers answering the question, “How do we underestimate the gospel today?”

How is the gospel underestimated today? – Matt Chandler from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

How is the gospel underestimated today? – Mark Dever from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

How We Underestimate the Gospel Today – Kevin DeYoung from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

How do we underestimate the gospel today? – David Platt & Ligon Duncan from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

The Power of the Gospel & the Pitfalls of Suffering & Success – John Piper from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

How Is the Gospel Underestimated Today? – Thabiti Anyabwile from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

I hope you’ll join us for the fellowship in God’s word at T4G 2012 and pray that we’ll all be changed and encouraged by the riches of Christ. Early bird registration closes October 31st.

Yesterday we began our discussion of “celebrity” and “rock star” pastors with some consideration of definition.  We can’t begin to unravel this issue without first defining the main concepts.  What exactly do we mean when we refer to “celebrity pastors” and “rock star pastors”?

After some considerable throat-clearing, here’s where we (at least, I) landed:

Celebrity Status–a social standing conferred or withheld by some public or audience.

Celebrity–an individual on whom celebrity status has been conferred, without regard to their merit or their intention.  They have a high- or popular-profile in media or other outlets important to the public.

Celebrity-Seeking–that behavior that looks for the applause and adulation of others, that aims to maintain a positive portrayal of self in the public, often on superficial and dishonest grounds.  See also idolatry, pride, self-aggrandizement, self-exaltation, delusions of grandeur.

While I don’t like the terms for their negative connotation, I hope these definitions at least allow us to distinguish group and individual levels of analysis; focus on observable behavior without saddling pastors with uncharitable labels; and better assign responsibility for any celebrity-making or celebrity-seeking problems.  By attempting to define terms, I’m raising basic questions about the propriety of pointing at public and influential pastors as though they’ve anointed and proclaimed themselves to be “celebrities.”

But there’s another critical aspect to good definition work when developing a theory: scope.  How large or small is the phenomena?  How many people are affected, participate, or share in the problem?  Without an appropriate idea of scope, we’re left guessing about whether we’re facing a tsunami or a trickle.  We’re liable to either over- or under-respond to the problem, to either overlook a problem really there or imagine a problem that’s not.  Scope becomes critical to solution.

How Big a Problem Is Celebrity-Making and Celebrity-Seeking in Contemporary Evangelicalism?

Now, that’s an important question.  Does anyone have an answer?  Re-phrase (since everybody has an answer): Does anyone have measurable and reliable answer?

Probably not.  We’re at the cruel  mercy of anecdote and perception.  People are sometimes fond of saying “perception is reality.”  I don’t know where that saying got it’s start, but it’s not true.  Perception is perception. Only reality is reality.  And if we’re interested in actually addressing the problem, we need to attend to what’s really real.  We need to ask the scope question on two levels.

The Celebrity-Making Level.  Nearly everyone commenting on this issue acknowledges that the evangelical crowds and conference goers have some responsibility in celebrity-making.  I’ve argued in the previous post that only the audience can confer celebrity status on a person.  Thus, the crowds bear the bulk of the responsibility for celebrity-making.

Much is made of conference attendees who line up to greet speakers, ask questions, shake hands, and seek autographs.  ”There!  See!  That’s the big problem!” some exclaim.  The anecdotal evidence suggests there’s a problem among mostly 20-somethings clamoring to take pictures with their favorite “celebrity pastor.”  How large a problem is this?  It’s difficult to estimate, but let’s just take the “mega-conference” (another horrible phrase) attendees as an example.

Young 20- to 30-somethings make up–what?–forty to fifty percent of the larger conferences available today.  So a conference boasting 5,000 attendees might hold some 2,000-3,000 persons in this demographic.  That’s considerable–and encouraging!  One observer speculates that a lot of these attenders are “conference Christians” who make the rounds on the conference circuit.  So, maybe there’s some over-representation caused by their multiple appearances?

I don’t know.  But here’s what I can say as someone who speaks at his share of conferences and enjoys meeting people there: Most of my conversations display little resemblance to the perceptions of some who disapprovingly watch the line of attendees approach the velvet rope.  Let me give you some examples from recent conferences:

* There’s the young Asian pair, student workers at a major university, asking how they should contribute to the well-being of their church as it goes through a particular difficult struggle.

* There’s the young man who asked me to summarize one of my books.  Then, without a hint of embarrassment said, “Thanks for that summary.  Sounds good.  I might consider buying it.”  My wife and I laughed for two nights on that one.

And, if I’m correct in assuming that the adulation tends to accrue among younger conference attendees, then I’m all the more hopeful rather than worried.  Why?  They’re going to mature.  They’re going to grow out of it, and there are a lot of good men and tough experiences that are going to help them grow out of it.  It may be that a more benign immaturity may be the taproot of much of what we think is a “celebrity-making” impulse “sweeping” through the church.

Celebrity-Seeking Level.  But we have to also address the phenomena at the level of the individual pastor.  We all maintain that pastors up-front have some responsibility for redirecting unhealthy and, at times, ungodly attention.  But the more pressing question to me is: To what extent is celebrity seeking behavior an identifiable problem among evangelical pastors?  What is the scope of the problem at the individual pastor level?

Writers and bloggers sometimes us the “rock star” and “celebrity” labels to imply that the pastor himself is out to create fans and celebrity.  I think that claims is dramatically overblown.  Here’s what I wrote on April 20, 2011, and I still maintain this position:

How many brothers do we know who are trying to be ‘celebrities’?  Quite frankly, if we knew that or observed that in a man’s character, wouldn’t we be repulsed?  I can’t name a man at the conferences I attend that I can say is self-seeking in that way, who wants the celebrity spotlight.  … For that reason, isn’t “celebrity pastor” a bit of an unnecessary slur?  Doesn’t it suggest a motive we’d have to interrogate?  A motive we ought to have some evidence of before we assign the tag?

Were a man seeking celebrity he would not be fit for the pastorate.  Point blank.  He would be disqualified, in my opinion.  He would be greedy for gain, lacking temperance and self-control, a spiritual novice really.  He could not be an elder in the church I serve.  And if that label “sticks” where I am personally concerned, then I need someone to help me see it so that I can resign immediately.  Unless we wish to call into question the fitness of every well-known pastor and preacher simply because he is well-known, I suggest we be much more restrained in our use of these labels, perhaps tossing them from our lexicon altogether.

Let me be as direct as I can be.  Of all the pastors I have met, know, and have had the privilege of serving with in my few years of ministry (pastors “in my camp”), I can think of only one that might be liable to the charge of self-seeking and currying “celebrity” or “rock star” status.  Might because while I find some aspects of his ministry highly questionable, to call him a “celebrity-seeker” is a step too far with my limited knowledge of the man personally.  While I will not name that person, I want to be clear about my feelings toward others I know who are unfairly named, implicated, or even thought to be criticized by me.  It’s not James MacDonald.  Though fellow TGC members, I don’t know James much at all, and I certainly don’t have a viewing stand on his heart to conclude that he’s a “celebrity-seeker” or “rock star pastor.”  Some people thought the timing of the multi-site and Elephant Room posts meant I was “gunning for” James.  That’s simply not true.  Representations to the contrary are false.  Moreover, it’s not John Piper.  Who fights against celebrity more than John?  It’s not Tim Keller.  Who is more unassuming and even shy than Tim?  It’s not John MacArthur.  Who beats the drum for ministry faithfulness and word-based integrity more than John?  It’s not Matt Chandler.  It’s not C.J. Mahaney.  It’s not a whole host of other guys who sometimes become poster children for these accusations simply because their ministries are large or they write books or people enjoy listening to their preaching.

Size doesn’t create celebrity.  Fruitful writing may make a person known, but that doesn’t equate to “celebrity-seeking.”  Nor does unusual gifting create celebrity.  The flesh creates, seeks, sustains, and revels in celebrity.  I have not and I do not put any of these men or any of the other men with whom I closely serve in this category.

I suppose that means I think the scope of the problem is smaller than some others perceive it.  Saying the scope is small is not the same as saying the problem is non-existent.  Saying that I might identify one man “in my camp” does not nullify other assessments people might make either about “my camp” or about others in broader evangelicalism.  Indeed, if I were to put on a wide-angle lens I could think of quite a few other worthies for the “celebrity-seeker” label.

Naming the Names in My Tribe

But right now I’m writing about my own tribe.  We’re criticizing ourselves, a good exercise lest we become blind to rather important issues.  As we look at ourselves, we need some data about the scope of the problem.  We can become Chicken Littles castigating every well-known pastor with unfounded suspicions and broad accusations about the falling sky of “celebrity culture.”  That’s not a good outcome.  We can do better.  We need to do better.

The issue at hand is too important for undiscerning use of phrases, phrases themselves co-opted from the secular celebrity world.  The terms engage simultaneously in the worst kind of exaggeration and the worst kind of trivialization.  They exaggerate our familiarity with the people and dynamics at work while trivializing the lethal spiritual danger that such behavior could represent.  We use the terms believing we know more than we actually do while missing the significant opportunities for correction and restoration where the problems actually lurk.

If we’re going to use these terms, we need to define them.  And once we’ve defined them clearly, including the scope of the problem, we should name names.  In fact, the easiest way to define the scope would be to name names and cite the evidence.  I think the charge is that serious, and I think the people who come under a cloud of suspicion absent definition and naming names deserve better from us as brothers.  If we like these terms and use them pejoratively, we should take the prophet’s stance, point the finger at the kings, and say, “David, you’re the man.”

But naming names is a decision with gravity.  We don’t do that lightly.  That’s good.  But we shouldn’t avoid the accountability of naming names by slinging mud on everyone with generic charges.  Slinging mud from the safe distance of our laptops… well, it takes no courage to do that.  Again, our brothers and our Lord deserve better.

“A celebrity is a person who works hard all his life to become known, then wears dark glasses to avoid being recognized.”
–Fred Allen, Treadmill to Oblivion

“The celebrity is a person who is known for his well-knownness.”
–Daniel Boorstin, The Image

“Celebrity: the advantage of being known by those who don’t know you.”
Chamfort Maximes et pensées

I’m a social scientist by education and training.  Prior to the Lord saving me, my ambition was to teach community psychology at a research 1 university.  I love the sound of markers on white boards and the way the brains of young students screech at a worldview halting or pop and ooze with some fresh discovery or intellectual challenge.  For a long while, the academic life seemed like the ideal life to me.

One reason for that ambition and that view of the academy were the teachers I enjoyed during my university studies–especially graduate school.  The Lord granted me the privilege of studying with some outstanding men, leaders in their field who were generous with others.  I looked up to them–still do.

One thing they taught me as an aspiring research psychologist was the indispensable role of theory in guiding research and practice.  A good theory was, as the saying goes, worth its weight in gold.  But you couldn’t just posit a theory and walk off into the sunset having explained all life’s problems with little more than your own ruminations.  Good theory was hard work.  The toil began with definitions.  A good theory depended on strong constructs.  I couldn’t help but recall this as I watched The Green Lantern this weekend.  The young reluctant superhero wasn’t so “super” until he learned to imagine and use strong reality-shaping constructs, ideas, or definitions.  In the social sciences, strong constructs were the difference between a salient and workable explanation of some social problem and a thorough shredding of your theory and hypotheses in the face of data and reality.

It seems to me that much of the talk about “celebrity” and “rock star” pastors must begin with solid working definitions.  Otherwise, we have no coherent, reliable way of discussing the issue.  Most current usage reminds me of the quip: “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”  People assume they know it when they see it, but they’ve spent precious little time thinking carefully about defining it.  But when the terms are sometimes pejoratives, accusations, insinuations, and slanders that affect the reputations of the ones so described, failing to define the terms or to think carefully about their use is at least negligent and at worst ungodly.  As I wrote in an earlier post on the subject, I find the terms deplorable.  The labels have all the power to stain and ruin a reputation without any of the inconvenience required by precise definition.  Think McCarthy’s Communist charges.

A Brief Survey of Usage

I spent a little time casting about the internet reading articles and blog posts to see if anyone had given much time to defining the terms.  As it turns out, at least on popular evangelical blogs, websites, and online journals, precious little definition is out there–even though from 2006 to the present one can see a noticeable uptick in the usage of the terms.

What exactly are we talking about when we use those terms?

In dictionary terms, “celebrity” refers either to “a famous person” or “fame, notoriety, renown.”  The term carries no necessary negative or positive connotation.  But most usage in both secular and evangelical circles nowadays departs from the textbook meanings and connotations.

For some, all you need is a blog or a Facebook page or a twitter account with a follower or two.  By that definition, Carl Trueman himself–perhaps the most outspoken critic of evangelical celebrity culture–is a “celebrity pastor.”  So is yours truly and probably your very own local church pastor.

For some, your writing needs to be a bit more elaborate than blog posts.  You need to have written a book or two.  Then you qualify as a “celebrity pastor.”  If people actually buy and read the book, quote you a time or two, then you’ve moved up to “rock star pastor” status.  Or, if you speak at a conference and your conference address gets published, that makes you twice the “celebrity” and “rock star” because (a) you were a conference speaker and (b) you made it into print.  Congratulations!

Sometimes people assume that if you actively and creatively promote what you’ve written or spoken then the act of promotion itself is self-aggrandizing and celebrity-seeking.  But why labor to speak or write on something important enough to speak or write about if you’re not going to tell others you think this important and have something to say?

Or perhaps “celebrity” and “rock star” work as synonyms for “young hipster“.  Still others seem to believe simply preaching to a large church makes you a “rock star” pastor.  If your church rolls boast more than 200-250 people, then you must be a “celebrity.”  After all, rather than stick to Jewish limits for walking distance on the Sabbath, people drive a number of miles to hear you speak, and some would even attend a satellite church to hear you.  Ipso facto–A “rock star.”

Notice something about these definitions?  They all attempt to define the concept by proxy.  They’re not statements about the essence of celebrity.  Rather, they’re symptoms, signs, or outward activities–a kind of ”celebrity in the eye of the beholder” definition.  They lack precision or nuance.  In short, these are inferences and speculations.  They won’t suffice for defining the phenomenon we’re concerned about.  We could all list scores of persons who use Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and market their writing or organization but would not be “celebrities” or “rock stars” in the commonly assumed pejorative sense.

So there must be something else, another way of addressing the issue.  Since most evangelicals use these terms as pejoratives–negative slurs–we dare not settle for lazy proxies.  If we’re going to label a man and express contempt for him, we ought to do it with precision.  Good derision no less than good praise depends on good definition.

Trueman’s Take

Carl Trueman, regard by some as the “watch dog” on this issue, offers perhaps the most helpful blog reflection on defining “celebrity.”  In “Public Figures and Celebrities: A Key Distinction,” Trueman distinguishes between someone simply well-known and public and someone courting celebrity.  Right up-front he helpfully identifies the problem with blurring the distinction between “public figures” and “celebrities”:

Anyone who performs any public action such as writing, preaching, or making a speech, becomes known by some section of the public at some level.   The more well-known such a public figure is, the more we think in terms of fame and being famous.  This is unfortunate as these words somewhat blur the distinction between being a public figure and being a celebrity.  After all, unless one allows a distinction between being well-known and being a celebrity, then one really denies that it is possible to criticize celebrity culture in the public sphere: such criticism, as a public act, would mean that the critics were immediately co-opted into that which they were critiquing.  Such incoherence would thereby render the exercise self-defeating and hypocritical, allowing for it to be dismissed on logical and moral grounds.

So, “celebrity” and “rock star” ought not be used as synonyms for “public” and “well known.”  ”Celebrity” and “rock star,” according to Trueman, include a certain dallying in secular and ungodly tendencies toward image production, fanfare, and shallow notoriety.  Here are the four aspects to “celebrity” that Trueman identifies:

1.  Being a celebrity “carries with it connotations of branding and marketing.” He adds: “There is a difference between someone who writes and speaks, even one who is very popular, and someone who has actually achieved a level of popularity combined with particular market appeal and particular marketing mechanisms.”

2.  Being a celebrity “is often accompanied by a strange familiarity whereby the celebrities are referred to in quite intimate terms by people who have never met them or have only the most passing of connections with them.”  Celebrities are people that other people feel strongly about even though there’s little or no actual relationship.  Trueman comments: “Being the object of such pseudo-familiarity is often a sign of the possession of celebrity status.”

3. “Celebrity also brings with it a certain fetish quality whereby peculiar power is ascribed to the person, a power which they do not instrinsically possess.” Trueman here takes aim at the tendency of some to invest unquestionable authority in a person (“this must be right because ‘X’ says it”).

4.  “Celebrity often today brings with it a certain aesthetic influence.” In other words, people begin to dress, speak, and act like the “celebrity” in question.

Based on these statements, movement toward “celebrity” and “rock star” status involve: marketing savvy, either currying or enjoying emotional attachment from those who do not know you, fetish quality, and aesthetic influence.  Trueman readily admits that aspects 2-4 may have more to do with the audience than the person being “celebrified.”  He opposes the idea that because a person’s admirers respond with over-familiarity, make a fetish of the man, or mimic him then the man himself can automatically be blamed for seeking celebrity.  But he also contends that the well-known public figure–especially pastors–have a responsibility to work against these tendencies in their audiences.  Lord willing, we’ll talk more about responsibility in a later post.  But for now, stand back and think a minute about this definition of “celebrity.”

What do you think of this definition?  Does this suffice as a good working definition for our theory that the church and pastors are vulnerable to “celebrity” and “celebrification”?  What strengths and weaknesses accompany this definition?  If three-quarters of the definition may be met by followers without the active design of the “celebrity,” how useful is this definition for describing the pastors in question?

In social psychological terms, I’d say–as helpful as Trueman’s four-part reflections are–the definition lacks “construct validity.”  It has good “face validity” (it looks and sounds correct) but it fails the test of “discrimination validity” (it fails to distinguish sufficiently from other phenomena).  In other words, the definition fails to measure what’s happening with the pastor or preacher or actor or athlete in question.  It tells us mostly about ourselves, audiences, spectators, and fans–but it doesn’t really tell us about the “celebrity.”  Again, in social science jargon, there’s a “confound.”  In this case, we confuse levels of anyalysis–individual and group–with the one term.

So, it’s difficult to see how we could reliably brand a man a “celebrity pastor” or “rock star” pastor when we’re mostly describing the attributes and actions of the crowd.  Let me hasten to agree with Trueman that the pastor or leader in question has responsibility for thinking about how they discourage adulating tendencies in others.  But at the level of whether or not we should call a pastor himself a “celebrity” or “rock star,” it seems prudent to me that we call a moratorium until we’re equipped with better definitions.  I think that’s especially important because the use of these terms implies something sinister about the hearts of the men so labeled.

One More Attempt

In another post, Trueman cites email correspondence with a Bavinck scholar.  This attempt at a definition gets closer to a one-sentence definition centered more on the individual pastor himself rather than the effects of celebrity in the surrounding culture–whether broader secular or smaller evangelical culture.  He writes:

I would define the current notion of celebrity, for example, around the categories of aesthetics carefully cultivated and public self-disclosure of personal details with the goal that the public then celebrates this person in public arena etc.  … Sacrificing the difficult details of your private life in order to gain public adulation is a key part of secular celebrity, and I wonder if the way some of these preachers sacrifice the harder details of their private lives (or more often, the private sins of their wives/children – after all, shaming one’s self isn’t that good an idea as a preacher) in order to get public adulation is just the same thing.

This writer defines celebrity, in part, by the designed outcome–public celebration of the person himself.  The aspiring celebrity carefully cultivates an appearance, a persona, and strategically uses the details of their personal life to meet this goal.  That, I think, is the gist of most evangelical uses of the labels.  That, I think, is why the entire discussion is troubling on so many levels.

If evangelical pastors really act this way, they are not “pastors” in any biblical sense of the word.  If this is observable in a man, he should be immediately dismissed from the pastoral role.  But it’s troubling on another level.  Calling someone a “celebrity,” insofar as we imply they’re celebrity-seeking, requires us to make judgments about a person’s motives we simply cannot reliably make.  While it’s true that we may judge a tree by the fruit it bears, some folks are attempting to judge the difference between banana and plantain from the distance of a 1,000 miles.  In many cases, the critic’s emotional dislike while being unfamiliar with the “celebrity” may simply be the negative cousin to the celebrity-making public’s emotional attachment from the same distance.  One man hates the disclosure of private life while the other is drawn to it.  Six in one hand, half a dozen in the other.  And we’re still left asking ourselves, “What are we really observing in the person?”  We don’t know.

Toward Some Working Definitions

It’s taken me a while to get here (sorry about that), but here are some beginning definitions I hope might be helpful to those convinced they should continue using the terms.

Celebrity Status–a social standing conferred or withheld by some public or audience.

A person may use their gifts and abilities to seek notoriety or fame, but they cannot by those efforts make themselves famous, any more than they can make themselves loved.  Think of all the aspiring Hollywood actors waiting tables in L.A. hoping for that ‘big break.’  No matter how strenuously the aspiring celebrity may attempt to fashion and advance their image, the media and the public always play a substantial part in the image-making process and the determining role in conferring celebrity status.  In short, celebrities don’t make celebrities; people make celebrities.

Celebrity–an individual on whom celebrity status has been conferred, without regard to their merit or their intention.  They have a high- or popular-profile in media or other outlets important to the public.

Celebrity-Seeking–that behavior that looks for the applause and adulation of others, that aims to maintain a positive portrayal of self in the public, often on superficial and dishonest grounds.  See also idolatry, pride, self-aggrandizement, self-exaltation, delusions of grandeur.

Here’s what I hope these terms do for us.  They distinguish levels of analysis–whether we’re describing public attitudes and actions or individual.  In the case of “celebrity-seeking,” we may focus on observable behavior and not put entire groups of pastors under the dark cloud of a vague label.  I hope this says more squarely that the ability to confer “celebrity status” and the proportional responsibility for that action lies with the audiences or groups in question.  If it’s true that the ability to confer celebrity status lies with the crowds, then that raises basic questions about the propriety of pointing at public and influential pastors as though they’ve anointed and proclaimed themselves to be “celebrities.”  Again, I’m not denying the responsibilities we all have in the public square.  I’m simply placing the primary locus of control at the celebrity-making group level rather than the individual pastor level.

Frankly, I don’t think we have any good definitions available to us at all.  Even those who think about pop culture and celebrity as an academic career lament the shifting sands of definition in this area.  Honestly, I think we’d be better off treating this issue the way we sometimes treat discussions of “Calvinism” or “Reformed theology”–better to describe and explain what we’re talking about than to use the label that miscommunicates so much.

What We Teach Titus

My four year old sometimes repeats things he hears.  Sometimes it’s cute.  He will appropriately use a phrase befitting someone in their sixties.  The weird juxtaposition of old-age wisdom and his four-year-old frame triggers a good chuckle.

But his mimicry isn’t always funny.  Sometimes he picks up a word he shouldn’t repeat–ever.  At four years old, he doesn’t know what he’s saying and he doesn’t have the mental faculties as yet to distinguish between good things to emulate and the evil company that corrupts good manners.

So we have a simple rule in our house.  If you don’t know what a word or phrase means, don’t use it.  Plain and simple.  Know what you’re talking about, otherwise avoid that term.  This entire “celebrity” discussion reminds me of that principle.  Until we know what we’re talking about, we should avoid the terms–especially when there are more respectable ways of referring to prominent people, like “prominent,” “high-profile,” “public” and so on.  As Christians, we should show honor even when we’re attempting to point out serious problems.

Increasingly we’re seeing the terms “rock star pastor” and “celebrity pastor” tossed about. Even though most people acceptably follow and patronize their favorite celebrity actors and performers, and a good number of us grew up idolizing “rock stars” (although, for me, it would have been rap–not rock), the terms in an Evangelical context are pejoratives, derogatory terms of abuse, expressions of contempt. In fact, there’s a good case to be made that most uses of the terms “celebrity pastors” or “rock star pastor” amount to uncharitable slurs.

I hate the terms.  I really do.  They tar and feather good men.

The increasing use of the terms does suggest a need to address an increasing problem.  Now, please don’t rush in judgment to conclude that the problem is the “celebrification” of pastors.  That’s only one potential problem.  The other potential problems have to do with the hearts of those who would use expressions of contempt and uncharitable slurs in the first place–particularly without knowledge of the person they’re so labeling.

So, it seems a good review of these terms is in order.  I’m feeling particularly interested in taking up this issue because in the last week the terms have come home to roost.  Following my post on multi-site churches, a couple dear brothers wrote to me privately to push back on the rhetoric, tone, and substance of the post.  Those were wounds of friends.  Both brothers in some way intimated that I might be a “celebrity pastor,” or at least face some of the same challenges as those I criticized in the post.  That was alarming, and the suggestion has by God’s grace been working good fruit of reflection in my own soul.  It immediately revealed that my own sinful pride came to the foreground in that post.  At the very least, I should have confessed more fully that everything in the post regarding pride and the temptation to idolizing self or others is true of my own heart.  I don’t need to leave the bed in the morning before I’m confronted with the corruptions of my own heart.  While I do think there’s a difference of degree created by some forms of the multi-site strategy, I should have made it more clearly known in the post itself (not just in the comments) that there is no difference in kind–all of our hearts are idol factories–beginning with my own heart.

But there’s a second way the terms have come home to roost following the multi-site post.  Some people read the post and instantly concluded that I would happily use those pejorative terms or accept without critique the very concept itself.  Some even assumed I was taking aim at a particular “celebrity pastor.”  They were wrong on both counts.

I did not even use the terms in the post, and I was not attempting to tag anyone with the labels.  I hate the labels.  The one name appearing in the post is that of James MacDonald.  I named him, not to label him, but as I say in the opening sentence to pay “homage” in borrowing a similar title from an earlier post of his.  Lest there be further misunderstanding, “homage” is a show of respect and admiration or dedication by a remark or gesture.  By borrowing the title, I was paying tribute to James’ way with words and use of provocation in service to good causes.  There was no attack of MacDonald in that post.  That the critique of his invitation of Jakes to the ER followed a day of so later was simply the providence of God, for that’s when I learned of the invitation, read the series of remarks being made elsewhere, and decided to share a perspective I thought missing in the discussion.  So, I want to allay concerns and quiet Evangelical conspiracy theorists trying to connect the dots between posts and read any animosity between the lines.  Those who know me tend to think I try to say what I mean and mean what I say.  As far as I’m concerned, there’s no personal animosity to observe in any of this–even where I seriously disagree with the ER decisions.  I’ve never intentionally slandered MacDonald with either of these labels.

Apart from possibly unthinkingly using the term during a recent panel discussion, I don’t think I’ve ever used the term to describe anyone.  And even during that panel, when a couple brothers objected to the use of the term, I immediately asked if I were the one who introduced the term because I was mortified with such a potential slip and ready to instantly apologize.  I was told during the panel discussion that I had not been the one who introduced the term.  But, after the panel, still feeling uneasy in spirit with the discussion, I approached two brothers to offer apologies for any offensive thing I said.  Again, after the panel I was told no offense had occurred.

But there seems to be some continuing misunderstanding about both what happened on the panel and what or who I criticized in the multi-site post.  When we come to interpreting someone’s writing–whether the Bible or blog posts–one controlling issue is “authorial intent.”  What did the author mean when they wrote the document?  We can’t understand any writing properly until we understand something about authorial intent.  Nonetheless, it’s incumbent upon the author to make their writing clear.  I think it was C.S. Lewis who counseled writers to be sure to choose words and write in such a way that the reader’s understanding and conclusion can only be what the author meant.  That’s a tall order, but it’s necessary.  My failure to write with that kind of specificity and clarity has left some people with the wrong conclusions and impressions, including some people who thought the post was “a personal attack” or “about them” when it was not.  That’s my fault.  So even though the post was not intended as a personal attack against anyone, I offer my apologies to everyone who felt in some measure–great or small–as if they were being personally and inappropriately assailed or labeled “celebrity pastor” or “rock star pastor” by what I’ve written.  I sincerely regret my lack of clarity and our misunderstanding.

So, if I can, I’d like to try in a series of posts to clarify a few things regarding what I think (as if anyone needs to care) about the use and abuse of the terms “rock star” and “celebrity” pastor.  As I said earlier, I hate the terms.  I look forward to explaining–hopefully with clarity–why.

Love is the most comfortable attribute in God, and the best name by which we know him (1 John 4:16).  Love acts with a priority to all other attributes.  Wisdom plans the happiness of man, and power and providence bring it to pass, but love has the first hand in the work.  It was love that first summoned the great counsel held by all three persons in Elohim before man or angels existed.  Love marked the Son as the foundation of the whole structure of man’s salvation and blessedness.  Love sent Christ into the world, put him to death, and made him an offering for sin.  All the attributes of God act in the strength of love, and all the providences of God flow from the motions of love.  Electing love is the proper source of all our other mercies (Eph. 1).  He has chosen us before the foundation of the world, bestowed grace freely upon us, and has given us redemption through his blood.  Paul lays all these blessings at the feet of electing love (Eph. 1:11).  Love is the only attribute that God has acted out to the utmost.  We have never seen the utmost of his power, but we have seen the utmost of his love.  He has tabernacled divinity in flesh (1 Tim. 3:16).  He has made his soul an offering for sin, and laid upon him the iniquity of us all (Is. 53:10-11).  He has made us the righteousness of God in him (1 Cor. 5:21); he has made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 2:6), and written our names in heaven.  How can divine love put forth any greater effort of love than this?  It is infinite love and it gives the soul an interest in an infinite good.  It entitles it to an infinite blessedness, and fills the soul with infinite satisfaction.  Is not having an interest in this electing love the highest cause for rejoicing?  Love gives us a “name in heaven,” which causes eternal rejoicing.

Matthew Mead, A Name in Heaven, cited in Voices from the Past: Puritan Devotional Readings for Oct. 4th.

So, a little over a week ago the young married couples small group my wife and I lead had our first salsa lesson.  It was great fun and very instructive.  As my wife pointed out in a previous post, salsa is all about leadership and submission.  If the biblical concept of complementarity baffles you, then take a night to have a salsa lesson.  Besides being fun, you’ll have a wonderful model for male-female relationships in marriage.  Here’s what I learned:

1.  The entire dance depends on male leadership. There is no dance if the man doesn’t lead.  The choreography is in his head.  He must know the next steps, turns, and destination he desires for the couple.  The woman responds to his lead.  Without a plan and without leadership, everyone is left standing on the dance floor staring at each other… as my wife and I were on a few occasions during our lesson.

Let me underscore that “choreography in his head” bit.  He needs to know more than “I want to dance.”  He needs to know–like a good chess player, to mix the metaphor–the next several moves.  I’m sure there are many more moves than those we learned. We only had a basic lesson.  And let me tell you, just those few basic steps were enough to manage for the both of us!  What are we going to do after this next step?  Do we need to turn or enter a side step?  The variations were dizzying.  But it was my responsibility to know the next step.  To quote Nietsche, “A man without a plan is no man at all.”  Or at least he’s no salsa dancer.  Leadership requires a thought-out plan.

Point: Husbands are in a position of inescapable leadership, and that requires actually having a series of moves planned for the marriage and family.

2.  Leadership requires a lot of communication. But how to get the choreography in my head into the movement of my wife?  Ahhh… there’s the question so many of us ask!  Many of us guys live in our heads.  We like to “marinate” in an issue before we talk about it.  Then when we talk about it, we tend to do so in grunts and half sentences.  We leave out the many details and steps along the way to our conclusion/decision.  So we fail to bring our wives along with us.  They’re watching us as we spring forward like Jacks in the box with our painted on smiles and happy announcements, expecting them to “get it” or at least “get on board.”  Is there any wonder that our wives sometimes meet us with looks that say I wish I had a mallet?

But salsa teaches you to constantly communicate.  While you choreograph, you must communicate with your partner by means of gentle nudges, leading pulls, and clear signals.  The entire dance makes a man get out of his head and get into a rhythm with his partner.  And to do that, there must be constant cues, signal saturation, polite pulls, and knowing nudges.  Without these cues and signals, there is no way to get the partner in the dance with you.

The difference between a good leader and a poor leader is whether or not he communicates and leads clearly and gently, or roughly.  Some women have finished a night of dancing feeling as though they’ve been in a 12-round heavyweight boxing match.  Rough communication ruins the dance for the woman.  But warm, gentle touches make the dance enjoyable.

Point: Communicate much, much more than you think you need to.  She’ll dance with you if you tell her the next move in a loving, gentle way.

3.  Many couples need more tension in their lives. Let me explain.  During the dance, I noticed that when I wanted to signal the next move, often Kristie didn’t receive the signal.  I was stuck trying to figure out how to nudge or pull in a way she could “hear.”  Turns out that our arms were extended too far and held too loosely.  In order for the signals to be noticeable, we actually needed to move much closer to one another and keep a certain amount of “elastic tension” in our arms.  Our arms were to be like rubber bands that could be stretched but always returned to their shape.  By keeping this tension, my signals ran like electric current through my arms into hers.  And voila!  She danced with me!

Point: Hold your wife close to ease and expedite communication.

4.  Submission and anticipation are contradictions. Now, this little lesson was eye-opening for me.  For a while, I kept complaining to Kristie that she wasn’t doing what I wanted.  One problem was the close tension issue above.  But another problem was her attempt to anticipate my next move.  She was actually trying to help and dance with me.  But her efforts to “help me lead” were hampering my ability to lead.  Let me say that again for any wives that missed it: Her efforts to “help me lead” were hampering my ability to lead.

I was trying to signal a turn, but she would be millisecond a head of me into a side step.  I noticed something about myself at that point.  First, I was growing irritated and frustrated but didn’t quite know why.  I knew I was trying to do something and, even though she was trying to dance with me, she wasn’t with me.  I’d try again, but it still wouldn’t work.  Second, I kept trying the same “adjustment” rather than something different.  Like, say, talk about it.  I kept saying, “You’re not letting me lead.”  She kept saying, “What are you talking about?”  I’d say, “Stop leading.”  She’d say, “What do you mean?”  When I asked for a little coaching from the teacher, she’d even watch the teacher and try to do the step, too.  Even that frustrated me because I felt like she was interrupting my efforts to learn to lead.

Then I told the teacher on her!  Great move.  Best move all night.  Our salsa instructor pointed out that in no circumstance was she to anticipate my next move.  Anticipating was, in effect, leading–which wasnt’ her role.  Her efforts to “help me lead” were actually blocking my ability to lead.  A marvelous thing happened after that.  We put the healthy tension and closeness in our dance, she stopped anticipating, and I was able to lead.  We danced well together!

Point: Ladies, ask your husband if there are ways you’re trying to help him that seem to hinder his efforts to lead.  That may be an area where your well-intended anticipations actually usurp leadership and ruin the blessing of submission.

5.  Submissions depends on a lot of communication. Now, if I were to put myself in my wife’s shoes for a moment, my feet would really hurt.  But also, I would understand something about her needs.  If the choreography is in my head, if she is not to anticipate but respond, then she really, really needs me to communicate a lot.  Her submission requires my expression.  That seems like a really obvious thing to say, but I don’t know that I always understand the gravity of the need.

My wife is a very intelligent, capable, and eager woman.  The Lord has made her that way.  If I don’t communicate–which is what frees her to dance with all that intelligence, ability, and eagerness God has given her–then she’s standing there on the floor feeling wasted and neglected.  Ever seen the sitcom where the socially clueless guy who thinks he can dance takes the beautiful woman onto the dance floor and begins to wildly flail and spin in some primitive “dance” without any reference to the woman?  What does the woman do?  She stands there dumbfounded or embarrassed until she finally walks off the floor–sometimes for her own safety and sometimes simply dejected.  The man’s communication in salsa is that important.  My wife’s need for communication is that deep.  She either feels loved and led, or she feels like she’s got all these God given abilities and desires parked on the dance floor watching some idiot flail and howl at the moon.  Yeah, guys, it’s that bad.  For our wives to honor and follow us, they need to hear a lot about what we’re thinking and doing.

Here’s the marvelous thing: When we communicate the choreography and set her free to dance, she does exquisite and marvelous things that result joy for both of us!  Have you ever watched competitive salsa on television?  Where was your attention riveted?  I’m sure you enjoyed noticing the outfits, and perhaps you made some observations about the couple.  But didn’t you find yourself most taken with the woman whenever the lead gave her room to free style a little bit?  The elegance.  The smoothness.  The artistry.  Fingers poised just so.  Steps taken with such grace.  And, alas, the desire to return to her partner’s outstretched hand and lead.  Yeah, that’s dancing!

Point: Liberate my wife.  Set her free.  Tell her the dance.  Then wait for the beauty to flourish.  She desires and depends upon this.

6.  Love and gentleness are musts. Did I mention that salsa is a romantic dance?  Don’t let words like “steps” and “choreography” dupe you into thinking this is mechanistic and stiff.  This is Latin dance, man!  You gotta get your shoulders into it.  She has to hold her hands just so.  The eyes ought to lock.  The hold should be close and gentle.  The “dance” is about love.  Communicating it.  Sharing it.  Seeking it.  Clenching it.

I had forgotten this until just this past Sunday.  I was sharing our salsa lesson experience with others when a sister came up and introduced herself as the “official salsa coordinating committee” at her church.  She was thrilled to hear someone mention salsa in a church announcement.  Just as thrilled as I was to share it.  Then she said something to the effect of, “Don’t forget that salsa is about telling your wife ‘I love you’.”  Those nudges, pulls, taps, spins all say something.  They say, “I love you.  I adore you.  I want to share this life with you.”  Dance is one way to tell her that.

Point: Do I need to spell it out?

7.  Have fun learning. We forget that in our marriages.  We don’t know everything when we say “I do” and the minister pronounces us “man and wife.”  In fact, we don’t know nothing.  The entire marriage is a long-running romantic comedy full of slips and falls and glorious moments of wonder.  If we pretend to know it all, we’ll surely fail to learn much of anything.  We’ll miss the joy of discovery.  We’ll languish in our 20-something or 30-something year old understanding even though we’re now 40- or 50- or 60-something with indescribable new opportunities for saying, “Who are you?  I love you?”  It was fun to learn a little salsa.  It was even more fun to discover something else about me and my wife.  We can still dance!

Conclusion

So, fellas, take your wife salsa dancing.  You don’t need to be good at it.  You just need to want to say, “I love you.”  And the wonderful thing is the dance itself helps teach you how to say it better.

So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God.  Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.  I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself.  My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent.  It is the Lord who judges me.  Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes.  He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts.  At that time each will receive his praise from God (1 Cor. 4:1-5).

Jonathan Leeman, commenting similarly in The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love:

Statistics may have their uses for churches, but the most important things about a church cannot be measured—the differences between fake and real, between flesh and spirit, between the minds of men and the mind of God.  Only as we stand before God on the day of judgment will the real measurement of things be revealed.  Sadly, too many pastors and churches attempt to measure their ministry by what is seen rather than what is unseen. (p. 61)

How freeing it is when stewards of the gospel live each day in light of that Day knowing Whose judgment really and ultimately matters–not their members, not the courts, not even their own, but Christ’s alone.  For on that day we’ll be seen for who and what we really are, and we’ll receive our reward.

The pitfalls are many.  We may value the opinions and judgments of our people too much, swinging wildly between the last compliment and the last criticism we receive from our people.  Or we may think too highly of human courts, the court of public opinion outside the church, and give too much attention to being acceptable to the world.  And how often have we judged ourselves?  How often do we either condemn or excuse ourselves?  How often do we make the mistake of concluding we must be innocent because “our conscience is clear”?  How humbling for Paul to reveal that even though his conscience is clear regarding his life and ministry he still cannot conclude his own innocence as though his conscience were infallible.  Feeling okay about what we’re doing is not the same as being okay in God’s sight.

Why do we look to the judgment of others or to our own judgment of ourselves so often when such assessments are so unreliable?  Why do we take other people’s flatter or criticism so seriously?

There’s coming a Day when everything will be brought to light, and we will know ourselves as God has known us.  That’s far more sobering than the comments–positive and negative–we receive after the morning service.

I make a few specific applications from this reality:

1.  Pray, “Lord give me a clean heart.” (Ps. 24:3-4; Heb. 10:22)

2.  Work to be faithful in the small things so I may be found faithful in the big things, entrusted with more, and find my happiness with God (Matt. 25:21, 23).

3.  Do not fear man, but fear God (Matt. 10:28).

4.  Do not live to please men, but live to please God (Gal. 1:10).

5.  Look to my reward from God in the life to come, not in the world of men (Matt. 6:1-24).

Psalm 78:5-8

5He established a testimony in Jacob
and appointed a law in Israel,
which he commanded our fathers
to teach to their children,
6 that the next generation might know them,
the children yet unborn,
and arise and tell them to their children,
7 so that they should set their hope in God
and not forget the works of God,
but keep his commandments;
8 and that they should not be like their fathers,
a stubborn and rebellious generation,
a generation whose heart was not steadfast,
whose spirit was not faithful to God.

The Lord God of Heaven graciously provided His word (His “testimony” and “law”) as the foundational strategy and content for our parenting (v. 5). “He commanded our fathers to teach [it] to their children.” We see the same purpose in Deuteronomy 6.

Why does God command His people teaching His word instead of some other methodology or subject for instructing the godly offspring He desires (Mal. 2:15)? Why not video games? Why not public or private school? Why not applying the latest findings from psychology, sociology, education theory, or self-help? Why shouldn’t parents simply delegate this to the better prepared, better educated, better dressed, and better cultured?

It seems God designs His word, and specifically parenting by His word, to accomplish several objectives:

1. So that generations of families–not just individuals–might know His testimony and law (v. 6). God has a vision for our families to know and walk in his word from generation to generation. He has designed the family as the one institution for carrying that multi-generational ambition. The one consistent set of relationships that span the generations are the grandparent-parent-child-great grandchild kinships. We have Timothy as our example. “I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well.” “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14).

2. So that our children should set their hope in God (v. 7a). As Christian parents, “we have put our hope in the living God who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe” (1 Tim. 4:10). We “have no greater joy than to hear that our children are walking in the truth” (3 John 4). It is God’s word that is able to make our children wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. The Scriptures testify of Christ, and in them is eternal life. If the goal of our parenting conforms to God’s goal for our parenting, then we should use the word of God steadily and faithfully to encourage our children to set their hope in God. Schools teach our children to hope in education. Music and entertainment teach our children to hope in popularity and being “cool.” Self-help gurus teach them to hope in themselves. But we proclaim: Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God! That’s the mantra of biblical parenting and hope of every believing mother and father. So, we should teach the word of God in and as our parenting.

3. So that our children would not forget the works of God (v. 7b). In Psalm 78:9-10, immediately following the great statement of God’s desire in verses 5-8, the word of God tells us that the Ephraimites “turned back” and “did not keep God’s covenant, but refused to walk according to his law. They forgot His works and the wonders that He had shown them.” Forgetting God is the most dangerous thing about disobedience. What glorious works God has performed in creation and deliverance! It’s a stupendous thing that such a Reality could ever be forgotten! But we do forget. Our children forget. We retain trivial things (favorite jokes, shopping lists, etc.) while having foggy thoughts of God. Our forgetting is our sinful reverting to beastliness. But our remembering is our active toiling toward godliness. Remembering is work enabled and prompted by God’s grace through His word. If our children would remember God, which God commands and desires, then they must have the annals of His work and life engravened on their minds. Thus, we should parent by teaching them Holy Scripture so that they do not forget.

4. So that our children would keep God’s commandments (v. 7c). The Bible maintains a strong connection between remembering and obeying (see, for example, Deut. 8:11-20). We cannot obey what we habitually forget. It’s a truism in organizational psychology that “what gets measured is what gets done.” Measuring aids remembrance which prompts performance. Evangelicals get nervous whenever obedience enters spiritual discussion. But we shouldn’t. As naturally as we expect our children to obey us, we should expect and exhort them to obey God–not for righteousness sake, but for love’s sake. Three times the Lord tells His disciples, “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15, 21, 23). Obedience is the blooming fruit of a loving root. Having taught our children to set their hope in God through faith in Christ, we dare not leave them little antinomians, disavowing any place for command, law, or obedience in following the Savior. We want them sanctified in the truth–His word is truth. We want them conformed by God’s grace through faith to the likeness of the Savior. Precisely because the Lord Jesus Christ is our holiness (Heb. 10:14), we want them to pursue holiness through faith- and grace-motivated obedience (Heb. 12:14).

5. So that our children would not be stubborn and rebellious, but steadfast and faithful (v8). Oh to see our children walk in the truth and never turn to the left or right, never grow cold in heart, never be tempted by the siren songs of the world, or fall into the devil’s snare! We pray so. But we must also teach God’s word with this hope and vision of steadfastness and faithfulness. The exhortation of Heb. 3:12-14 applies quite well to parenting. “Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as longs as it is called ‘Today,’ that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.” Substitute “brothers” with “parents” or “one another” with “children” and we get marching orders for encouraging our children daily in the word of God.

May the Lord make us faithful in teaching His word to the children He has entrusted to our care. His word does not return void. Let us trust it and use it with our children!